About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

38 Cap. U. L. Rev. 187 (2009-2010)
Not Your Coffee Table: An Evaluation of Companion Animals as Personal Property

handle is hein.journals/capulr38 and id is 189 raw text is: NOT YOUR COFFEE TABLE: AN EVALUATION OF COMPANION ANIMALS AS PERSONAL PROPERTY CASEY CHAPMAN* I. INTRODUCTION Often when a chair or coffee table gets too old or out of style, we toss it to the curb or give it away, glad that we had made good use of it. We then run down to our local Pottery Barn and get a new one, with that old table long forgotten. It is only property after all. Why is it then, when our pets get too old we do not toss them to the curb and replace them without second thought? As many state laws and many courts have stated, animals are merely personal property, and thus, should be treated no differently than a coffee table.' Yet to most people, their pets are much more than personal property.2 People have willed their estates to their pets upon Copyright © 2009, Casey Chapman * I chose to write this comment based on a personal experience involving a defective product that injured my animal. Luckily, my animal was fine, but after further research I discovered that many animals have died or been seriously injured due to this product, and yet it is still on the shelves. Because there are virtually no damages available to animal owners whose pets are injured or killed by third parties, culpable offenders often go unpunished and animal owners uncompensated. Although a defective product prompted me to write on this topic, the article itself is more general and broader in scope. I hope to reflect my sincere belief that animals occupy a special place somewhere between humans and personal property, and that societal values support an expansion of rights for animal owners. 1 See, e.g., CAL. PENAL CODE § 491 (West 1997); MD. ANN. CODE art. 24, § 11-506 (2005); OHio REv. CODE ANN. § 955.03 (West 1994); W. VA. CODE ANN. § 19-20-11 (LexisNexis 2007); Gluckman v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 844 F. Supp. 151, 158 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) (holding there is no independent cause of action for loss of the companionship of a pet, which is personal property); Mitchell v. Heinrichs, 27 P.3d 309, 313-14 (Alaska 2001) (holding dogs have the legal status of personal property and recovery for the wrongful death of a dog is limited to its market value); Pantelopoulos v. Pantelopoulos, 869 A.2d 280, 284 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2005) (holding the owner of an intentionally killed animal could not recover for emotional distress); Lockett v. Hill, 51 P.3d 5, 7-8 (Or. Ct. App. 2002) (holding the owner of a negligently killed animal could not recover for emotional distress); Carbasho v. Musulin, 618 S.E.2d 368, 371 (W. Va. 2005) (holding sentimental value and emotional distress are not recoverable when a pet is killed because pets are personally property). 2 See, e.g., Carbasho, 618 S.E.2d at 371 (recognizing the emotional attachment people have to their pets).

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most